Building A Private Sector Option
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
When I went to Wikipedia to get an official definition for the “public option”, I learned that in regard to the health care legislation, the “public option” was a health care package that would be sold by the federal government, offering minimum coverage elements for payment of health care services and that it would be paid for by the premiums of those who purchased the plan. If it were to be provided in the final legislation to gain adoption, this “public option” would compete in the marketplace with private products that are bought and sold as protection tools to cover the costs of health care services.
It would seem that having this type of an alternative is viewed as a really good idea by a number of thought leaders (who haven’t been taking it well that the health care legislative package that Senator Harry Reid maneuvered through the Senate process didn’t have this concept incorporated). The principle, as I understand it, is that the competition from the government-sold alternative would make the private products more responsive and responsible for what people need and want. Those companies who currently provide health care payment coverage aren’t doing it as they should and having a public option would either cause them to change their ways or the gaps that they aren’t willing to provide benefits for would be covered by the more inclusive coverage that would be in the government-sold product.
Shift Gears With Me To Nevada’s Vision Development Process:
I didn’t want to be less than obvious that my thinking for a “private sector option” was connected to health care payment. I’m interested in translating the principle of competition for what’s currently offered (in these examples by government) to incorporate options for more private sector alternatives.
In a couple of weeks the Nevada Citizen’s Stakeholders group will be starting their work of developing strategies for improving Nevada's standing in key quality-of-life components. These areas for recommendation include:
Well if competition by government would be a good thing for taking care of the glaring weakness that business isn’t willing to address in the products and services offered for health care payment products – why not develop the ability and full-fledged opportunities for private sector options to the short-comings of government-provided areas? Quality-of-Life things shouldn’t be about where we get the service we expect – it’s about getting the “quality” we think we ought to receive.
If government is delivering less than a quality service and we’re paying as much as we’re paying to get this level of outcome – why not think about alternatives that include full-fledged opportunity for something other than government to provide? Just thinking in terms of increasing the ability for government to spend more on delivering less than the quality we would like to have doesn’t seem to be a very good option.
We would welcome your input and ideas on ways to incorporate a comprehensive “private sector option” for the quality-of-life components we’re going to be working on. We will also be throwing out ideas that come to our mind as well.
When I went to Wikipedia to get an official definition for the “public option”, I learned that in regard to the health care legislation, the “public option” was a health care package that would be sold by the federal government, offering minimum coverage elements for payment of health care services and that it would be paid for by the premiums of those who purchased the plan. If it were to be provided in the final legislation to gain adoption, this “public option” would compete in the marketplace with private products that are bought and sold as protection tools to cover the costs of health care services.
It would seem that having this type of an alternative is viewed as a really good idea by a number of thought leaders (who haven’t been taking it well that the health care legislative package that Senator Harry Reid maneuvered through the Senate process didn’t have this concept incorporated). The principle, as I understand it, is that the competition from the government-sold alternative would make the private products more responsive and responsible for what people need and want. Those companies who currently provide health care payment coverage aren’t doing it as they should and having a public option would either cause them to change their ways or the gaps that they aren’t willing to provide benefits for would be covered by the more inclusive coverage that would be in the government-sold product.
Shift Gears With Me To Nevada’s Vision Development Process:
I didn’t want to be less than obvious that my thinking for a “private sector option” was connected to health care payment. I’m interested in translating the principle of competition for what’s currently offered (in these examples by government) to incorporate options for more private sector alternatives.
In a couple of weeks the Nevada Citizen’s Stakeholders group will be starting their work of developing strategies for improving Nevada's standing in key quality-of-life components. These areas for recommendation include:
- Economic Diversification
- Education
- Energy Use
- Health and Human Services
- Job Creation
- Public Transit and Transportation
- Public Safety
Well if competition by government would be a good thing for taking care of the glaring weakness that business isn’t willing to address in the products and services offered for health care payment products – why not develop the ability and full-fledged opportunities for private sector options to the short-comings of government-provided areas? Quality-of-Life things shouldn’t be about where we get the service we expect – it’s about getting the “quality” we think we ought to receive.
If government is delivering less than a quality service and we’re paying as much as we’re paying to get this level of outcome – why not think about alternatives that include full-fledged opportunity for something other than government to provide? Just thinking in terms of increasing the ability for government to spend more on delivering less than the quality we would like to have doesn’t seem to be a very good option.
We would welcome your input and ideas on ways to incorporate a comprehensive “private sector option” for the quality-of-life components we’re going to be working on. We will also be throwing out ideas that come to our mind as well.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 12/26/2009 9:30 AM 
Categories: Nevada Vision Project
Tags: Nevada Nevada Tax Study Interim Legislative Committee
Categories: Nevada Vision Project
Tags: Nevada Nevada Tax Study Interim Legislative Committee
Comments